Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dot Cross
Dot Cross
Tevian Dray
Department of Mathematics
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
tevian@math.oregonstate.edu
Corinne A. Manogue
Department of Physics
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
corinne@physics.oregonstate.edu
January 15, 2008
Abstract
We argue for pedagogical reasons that the dot and cross products
should be defined by their geometric properties, from which algebraic
representations can be derived, rather than the other way around.
Introduction
Most students first learn the algebraic formula for the dot and cross products in rectangular coordinates, and only then are shown their geometric
interpretations. We believe this should be done in the other order. Students
tend to remember best the first definition they use; this should not be an
algebraic formula devoid of context. The geometric definition is coordinate
independent, and therefore conveys invariant properties of these products,
not just a formula for calculating them. Furthermore, it is easier to derive
the algebraic formula from the geometric one than the other way around, as
we demonstrate below.
1
~v
~v
~
w
|~
w|
~
w
Dot Product
(1)
~.
for the dot product of any two vectors ~v and w
An immediate consequence of (1) is that the dot product of a vector with
itself gives the square of the length, that is
~v ~v = |~v |2
(2)
In particular, taking the square of any unit vector yields 1, for example
= 1
(3)
(4)
(5)
We follow standard usage among scientists and engineers by putting hats on unit
vectors.
~
B
~
C
~
A
Figure 2: The Law of Cosines is just the definition of the dot product!
The geometry of an orthonormal basis is fully captured by these properties;
each basis vector is normalized, which is (3), and each pair of vectors is
orthogonal, which is (5).
The components of a vector ~v in an orthonormal basis are just the dot
products of ~v with each basis vector. For instance, in two dimensions, setting
vx = ~v
vy = ~v
(6)
(7)
This computation clearly works for any orthonormal basis. A special case
is the dot product of a vector with itself, which reduces to the Pythagorean
theorem, for example
~v ~v = |~v |2 = vx2 + vy2
(8)
What happens if you dont use an orthonormal basis? Consider Figure 2,
~ +C
~ = B,
~ or equivalently C
~ =B
~ A.
~ Then
in which A
~ C
~ = (A
~ + B)
~ (A
~ + B)
~
C
~ A
~ +B
~ B
~ 2A
~ B
~
= A
3
(9)
~u
~v
~
w
Figure 3: A geometric proof of the linearity of the dot product.
or equivalently
~ 2 = |A|
~ 2 + |B|
~ 2 2|A||
~ B|
~ cos
|C|
(10)
which is just the Law of Cosines! The Law of Cosines is usually used to
derive the geometric form of the dot product (1) from the algebraic form (7),
which is taken as the definition. Instead, by starting with geometry, the Law
of Cosines follows immediately.
Not so fast! Did you spot the flaw in the above argument? In the computation (7) of the algebraic formula for the dot product in terms of components, it was assumed without comment that the dot product distributes
over addition, or in other words that the dot product is linear. If one starts
with the geometric definition (1), this must be proved.
However, the proof is straightforward, as shown in Figure 3. 2 We must
show that
~ = ~v w
~ + ~u w
~
(~v + ~u) w
(11)
~ is
But this is equivalent to showing that the projection of ~v + ~u along w
the sum of the projections of ~v and ~u, which is immediately obvious from
Figure 3.
Examples
Active versions of this figure are available online at [1] in both Java and Maple formats.
Gram-Schmidt Orthogonalization
The most common use of the dot product in applications in physics and
engineering is to decompose vectors into their components parallel and perpendicular to a given vector, for which an understanding of the geometric
definition (1) is essential.
The Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process uses this idea to construct
an orthonormal basis from a given set of (linearly independent) vectors. This
can be beautifully illustrated in three dimensions, as shown in Figure 5 and
described below. Stick out three fingers of one hand in arbitrary directions.
5
Cross Product
(12)
(13)
|~
w|
~v
|~v | sin
~
w
Figure 6: The geometric definition of the cross product, whose magnitude is
defined to be the area of the parallelogram.
The direction of the cross product is given by the right-hand rule, so that in
~ points into the page. This implies that
the example shown ~v w
~v w
~ = ~
w ~v
(14)
(15)
(16)
with the remaining products being determined by (14) and (15). This cyclic
nature of the cross product can be emphasized by diagramming the multiplication table as shown in Figure 7. 4 Products in the direction of the arrow
get a plus sign (e.g. k = +
), while products against the arrow get a minus
sign (e.g. k =
).
3
This may be the first example some students have seen of a product which is not
commutative. It is worth pointing out that the cross product also fails to be associative,
k
Figure 7: The cross product multiplication table.
the geometric formula reUsing an orthonormal basis such as {, , k},
duces to the standard component form of the cross product. If ~v = vx +
then
~ = wx + wy + wz k,
vy + vz k and and w
(wx + wy + wz k)
~v w
~ = (vx + vy + vz k)
= vx wx + vx wy + ...
(17)
k
~v w
~ = vx vy vz
wx wy wz
(18)
As with the dot product, this derivation works in any (right-handed) orthonormal basis.
OK, this time you surely noticed; we must again check linearity, that
is, whether the cross product distributes over addition, or in other words
whether
~ (~v + ~u) = w
~ ~v + w
~ ~u
w
(19)
since for example ( ) =
but ( ) = ~0.
4
This is really the multiplication table for the unit imaginary quaternions, a number
system which generalizes the familiar complex numbers. Quaternions predate vector analysis, which borrowed the quaternionic units i, j, k as labels for the rectangular basis
A more logical name for the rectangular basis vectors would be x,
y,
z,
vectors , , k.
which is used by many physicists.
~u
~v
~
w
Figure 8: A geometric proof of the linearity of the cross product.
As we now show, this follows with a little thought from Figure 8. 2 Consider
in turn the vectors ~v , ~u, and ~v + ~u. The cross product of each of these
~ is proportional to its projection perpendicular to w
~ . These
vectors with w
projections are shown as solid lines in the figure. Since the projections lie in
~ , they can be combined into the triangle shown
the plane perpendicular to w
in the middle of the figure. Two of the vectors making up the sides of a
triangle add up to the third; in this case, the sides are the projections of ~v ,
~u, and ~v +~u, and the latter is clearly the sum of the first two. But each cross
product is now just a rotation of one of the sides of this triangle, rescaled
~ ; these are the arrows perpendicular to the faces of the
by the length of w
prism. Two of these vectors therefore still add to the third, as indicated by
the vector triangle in front of the prism. This establishes (19).
We digress briefly to mention some pedagogical issues which arise when teaching students about the cross product.
First of all, we strongly discourage teaching, or even reviewing, the dot
and cross products at the same time students tend to get them mixed up!
As for the calculation of the cross product, we encourage students to
compute the determinant (18), rather than memorizing (17). But we also
encourage students to use the multiplication table directly for simple cross
rather than using determinants at all.
products, such as ( + 3 ) k,
9
vx
wx
@
vy @
vz @
vx vy
@
@
@ @
wy @wz @wx @wy
@
(20)
where one multiplies the terms along each diagonal line, subtracting the
products obtained along lines going down to the left from those along lines
going down to the right. While this method works only for (2 2 and) 3 3
determinants, and is therefore usually omitted from a linear algebra course,
it has the definite advantage of emphasizing the cyclic nature of the cross
product whereas students who use minors often make sign errors.
Discussion
We have shown how to prove geometrically that the dot and cross products
are linear (i.e. that they distribute over addition), using Figures 3 and 8,
respectively. These proofs are important for faculty wishing to emphasize
the geometric definitions in their classroom. However, it is not at all clear
that these proofs are relevant for students, especially in introductory courses.
Most students will accept, say, the argument presented in (7) without question, failing to notice that linearity is an issue. While faculty should of course
be prepared to justify this if asked, we see nothing wrong with not raising
the issue of linearity otherwise. Similarly, the proof that the curl is a vector
field can be omitted.
As shown above, the Law of Cosines follows immediately from the geometric definition of the dot product, in direct contrast to the traditional
treatment, in which the order is reversed. Indeed, many students who have
11
~v
~u
Figure 10: Deriving the addition formula for cosine using the dot product.
memorized the Law of Cosines are delighted with this derivation. This suggests to us that it might be beneficial to include the dot product in trigonometry courses, even in high school, rather than saving it for later. A strong
argument in favor of such an approach is the ease with which the addition formulas could then be derived: From the unit circle definition of the trig functions, any vector on the unit circle can be written in the form cos + sin ,
where is the angle to the positive x-axis. But the cosine of the angle between any two such vectors is just their dot product, since both are unit
vectors, so that
cos( ) = ~u ~v = (cos + sin ) (cos + sin )
= cos cos + sin sin
(21)
12
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by NSF grants DUE0088901 and DUE
0231032. Early versions of the figures used to prove linearity were constructed
while we were Noyce Visiting Professors at Grinnell College, an opportunity
for which we are grateful. The print version of this manuscript was prepared using LATEX, then converted to MathML using TTM [7] for online use;
the color figures were originally drawn using Maple, then converted to Java
applets using JavaView [8].
References
[1] Tevian Dray and Corinne A. Manogue, Dot and Cross Products webpage.
Retrieved June 20, 2005 from
http://www.math.oregonstate.edu/bridge/ideas/dotcross.
[2] H. M. Schey, Div, Grad, Curl and all that, 4th edition Norton, New
York, 2005.
[3] David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd edition,
Prentice-Hall, New York, 1999.
[4] Paul Lorrain, Dale P. Corson, and Francois Lorrain, Electromagnetic
Fields and Waves, 3rd edition, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1988.
[5] John R. Reitz, Frederick J. Milford, Robert W. Christy, Foundations
of Electromagnetic Theory, 4th edition, W. H. Freeman, New York,
1993.
[6] William McCallum, Deborah Hughes-Hallett, Andrew Gleason, et al.,
Multivariable Calculus, 3rd edition Wiley, New York, 2001.
[7] Ian Hutchinson, TTM website. Retrieved January 28, 2006 from
http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/ttm.
[8] Konrad Polthier, JavaView website. Retrieved June 19, 2005 from
http://www.javaview.de.
13